Freedom of occupation

[bemildred]

On the table in the mobile home of Hagit and Amihai Carlebach, in the illegal West Bank outpost of Mitzpeh Lachish, amid the remains of the vegetarian Sabbath-eve meal, are an empty bottle of red wine, empty beer cans and a bottle and a half of arak that was laced with raspberry syrup and drunk in shot glasses. Around the table are the Carlebachs; Shmuel Friedman, a friend serving in the Haredi Battalion of the Nahal Brigade; Yael Bilia, a neighbor, and her boyfriend; and a soldier from the Lavie Battalion, which is in charge of rotecting the outpost.

The Carlebachs' trailer is at the edge of the outpost, which is not fenced. Only a few hundred meters separate it from the first houses in the Palestinian village of Beit Awa. Some of the mobile homes are surrounded by concrete barries, erected after the terrorist attack on the nearby settlement of Negohot on Erev Rosh Hashanah 2003, in which Eyal Yeberbaum and Shaked Avraham, a seven-month-old infant, were murdered. There is no fence around Hagit and Amihai's trailer, but their blood alcohol level is high, like their mood. Somewhere in the room are a rifle and a pistol, but for now, atop this lovely quiet hill, with everyone's stomach full and Hagit handing out books of Hebrew folk songs, it's easy for everyone to want nothing more than to go on drinking and singing. The first song, "You" by Uri Assaf, is chosen by Yael Bilia, 22, who moved here four months ago. She was evacuated from her home in the Gush Katif settlement of Netzer Hazani, in the Gaza Strip, during the disengagement. Gush Katif is where she met Hagit and Shmuel, who are from Neveh Dekalim. When they get to the line "The waves of the sea destroyed your home," Friedman bursts into tears, possibly lubricated by alcohol. He remains distraught until he goes to sleep. "The expulsion from home still hurts so much and doesn't go away," he says the next morning.

Bilia's eyes are also red. While trying to calm Friedman, she recalls a deceased relative who was reinterred inside the Green Line after the disengagement. Hagit tries to cheer everyone up and go on singing, but Amihai urges her to let their guests vent. "It's healthy," he says. Two hours later, Hagit also breaks down.

"It's something delicate that people are still living with," Amihai explains. "These people don't have a home now. The families split up, which split up the community, too. Much time has passed, but people are still living in Nitzan , not in a real home." Nevertheless, none of those present is even considering the possibility of avoiding another trauma by leaving the illegal settlement. Legal proceedings against Mitzpeh Lachish have already made its evacuation possible.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/956802.html

[Tom Joad]

1. taking land from Palestinians, one dunum at a time....

A sixty year tradition.

this couple came from Occupied Gaza, and now they are taking land from Palestinians in the West Bank.

So they still remain settlers, taking land from Palestinians, claiming it for Israel. Obviously, no net loss for Israel.

But why should Israel cede anything to Palestinians? They are not bound by any international law, which Israel ignores (Israel's leadership philosophy seems to be "international law is for losers!". There is very little outside pressure, certainly not from the US, and hardly from Europe.

The only way things will change is from a grassroots movement for boycott and divestment.

[Vegasaurus]

4. There you go again Tom

with your 60 years .

I hope it is clear now that you are one of the ones (you have company) on this board who believes that all of Israel is an occupation, not just the WB.

You are very clear. I hope those that don't believe people on the board make these statements will be sure to read your continuing inflammatory posts.

on edit: tried to unbold everything except 60 YEARS, but it didn't work.

[breakaleg]

5. He did not say that. But I know you won't let that stop you. nt

[pelsar]

10. lets see...simple math...

2008-60 = 1948....i guess that means in 1948 israel became an occupying country.......is there perhaps a different way of looking at 60 years of occupation?

[breakaleg]

11. He said 60 years of stealing land. He did not say 60 years of occupation.

Let's not skip all the way to math. Let's starting with basic reading.

[subsuelo]

12. actually he said "taking" land

not to be a nit-pick or anything.

Just sayin.

:hi:

[breakaleg]

14. You are right. This is 'nit-pick-r-us' so please, go ahead! nt

[pelsar]

13. excuse my ignorance...

but i fail to see the difference between taking and stealing when tom mentions 60 years. This is hardly the first time hes mentioned the occupation of 60 years.....nor is it difficult to understand what he is saying, though he rarely says it in simple english.

why dont you simply ask him?..when i do, i dont even get an answer.......60 years of taking/stealing land simply means that israel is a "illegal"

[breakaleg]

15. Where has he said "occupation for 60 years"? Show me one time because I've never seen it.

There are a few here who like to claim it, but so far, none has been able to back it up.

[pelsar]

16. i dont save em.....

nor do i see a difference of "stealing or taking land for 60 years...it could be an interpretation problem, but when someone refers to 60 years of evil israel its pretty clear the basic bottom line.

Tom usually avoids making direct comments like that...however every so often he slips up and his:

"your either with us or against us" and "the ends justifies the means" type of philosophies shows up.
____

but like i suggested....perhaps you might want to ask him directly? i did

[subsuelo]

7. show me the post where it is written that all of Israel is an occupation

Thanks

[Vegasaurus]

8. "Taking the land from Palestinians, one dunum at a time....

A sixty year tradition". Read the post yourself.

If you don't believe that this statement, which intimates that that land wasn't bought legitimately, and/or was divided and sanctioned by the UN, not by those evil Zionists, is evidence of the "60 years of occupation", again I can't help you with your reading comprehension.

For forty years, you may feel that, but for the previous 20, Gaza and the West Bank were occupied by Egypt and Jordan (neither of whom wanted that land back). So, to say 60 years, delegitimizes Israel and calls the entire existence of the state "an occupation" (which it isn't).

[Violet_Crumble]

18. The fact is Palestinians did lose their land 60 years ago...

There are even cases of Israeli Arabs who had their land taken from them and to this day have not had it returned. That's a hard, cold fact, and seeing the poster yr hounding so clumsily didn't say anything about 60 years of occupation, you should stop trying to force words into his mouth and drop yr incessant crap where you make bullshit claims about what most posters in this forum think...

[Crunchy Frog]

19. You're saying there was not confiscation of Arab lands in Israel

between 1949 and 1967? Because if that is what you are saying, it is very much contrary to what I have been reading.

[pelsar]

17. discussion about your post... the 60 years.

Seems tom there is some confusion about your 60 years tradition. Perhaps you can clear it up.

Do you believe that israel is a legit state? as any other country in the world, such as the US, Jordan, China, Saudi Arabia, Austrialia, Morocco etc?

[azurnoir]

2. "Let the State answer the question"

And it has, for all tje "outposts" have been declared illegal there are IDF soldiers guarding them, the statement that best sums it up is here.-

Let the state answer this question: Why are there new homes on every hilltop that was empty when I got to Negohot? If the approach was that there is room here for Jews, everything here would be legal. The law here is irrelevant, because it stems from a conception. If the conception were to change, the law would change, too. The moment the prime minister's conception of Gush

The law is for publicity and nothing more, and until it costs Israel more to keep the settlements than to disband them nothing will change.

[bemildred]

3. Well, I liked the piece because it presents the voices of real people.

I'm not agreeing with them, I just find the views of real people in the middle of things more telling than the fictions and illusions of politicians.

And the message I took away from it, in the context of your views, was that Israel is not really united and in control of it's own destiny, and the government is not fully able to govern. The Israeli government lacks legitimacy in the sense that Israelis do not feel that they ought to obey it unless it suits them. I got a sense of escapism out of it, a certain refusal to deal with things unless one wants to.

Some of the dialog, some of that feeling, reminded me of things here in the 60s too, the hippie thing. I've occasionally posted other indications of rejection of the established order. After 60 years of war, that's not really surprising.

I'm not going anywhere with this, other than it seems like an ominous sign for the future.

[azurnoir]

6. Maybe rejecting the "established order"

but the order in the form of IDF is safe guarding them, they do have some of the same qualities as Hippies, but so do "survivalists" here, which are what they reminded me most of.
One of the most ominous signs for the future was the disconnect in what the Hagit said about the Palestinians being the enemy now but their children (Palestinian) were not, not yet maybe but keep it up with settlements and in 5, 10, or 20 years they will be. It was disturbing that she apparently did not understand why.


BTW in no way did I think you agreed with article

[bemildred]

9. Yeah, I can see that.

I had that sense of disconnect too, but that is almost a description of the human condition. You struggle with it all your life. And it's typical of young people. We start out captives of our culture and, perhaps, someday work our way outside that box to find a broader view. I am tempted to wallow in sweeping generalizations about all sort of things here, but I think I will not.

:hi: